Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: bad things are happening, why don't we do X is to literally google why isn't [the obviously simple thing I thought of] a good idea?, and see what smart people have already written Ironically, I tried to be devil's advocate by searching why isn't a code of conduct a good idea, and pretty much every result was an article on how code of conducts *are *a good idea. That aside, I think most of the people in this thread are already well-aware that admins is a very generic term, and that even so, most definitions of the word admins would probably not be a good enforcing body for a code of conduct. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On 8/23/15, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Admins? And who are those? Please build a listing of every admin for every possible technical venue relating to Wikimedia. While you're at it, we're going to need them to have a shared hivemind so enforcement is consistent between venues. They're also going to need to communicate about sanctions so that behaviour spilling over to multiple venues can be factored in. And while you're doing /that/ please make sure they all have an appropriate protocol for appealing things and passing issues upwards. Or we could have a committee. I get that this is a technical environment and we are all, myself included, used to being able to chip in anywhere with some utility. But please have some respect for the people coming up with these ideas. The idea of a code of conduct and an associated committee is coming from smart people, and it did not spring fully-formed from their brow like Athena from Zeus. It came from literal decades of work by many, many other smart people in a vast number of communities that have tried a ton of options. And when we say why don't we just do obvious_thing_x? we are demonstrating a total failure to respect the expertise other people have in this sort of process, which is generally /not/ our expertise, and failing to do research to boot. If it helps, imagine that instead of talking to this group about behavioural policies, you were explaining to C.Scott or Subbu why their idea for a parser is overly complicated and they /totally/ don't need to be doing $THING. So my suggestion - and this is something I have tried to follow myself when I don't understand the point of something in the form bad things are happening, why don't we do X is to literally google why isn't [the obviously simple thing I thought of] a good idea?, and see what smart people have already written. It saves from forcing marginalised individuals to repeat, for the fiftieth time in a thread, why X is a good approach here, and I tend to learn something along the way. Really, you're going to tell people to STFW on a thread about conduct? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
No, because that would be gratuitous and unnecessary language that contributes nothing to the discussion. But if you meant: really, you're going to suggest, optionally, that people do research before hitting send and consider the possibility that this is not their area of expertise, where it is other peoples', absolutely. To be clear; this is not /my/ area of expertise either. This is precisely why I try to make search for it before commenting on it a rule I adhere to. But I have seen people I respect and care about end up absurdly worn out by having to explain, again and again, what are (to them) basic things to people who have been fortunate enough to not be in a situation where they have to think about process, or the consequences of power imbalances, or similar subjects, and that is not an outcome I like to contribute to. I imagine it isn't an outcome other people particularly want either. And it is, in and of itself, something that is chilling; if the onus is on the marginalised to explain basic elements of this over and over then it swiftly becomes a game in which winning is too costly on time and energy to play. So I try to google and search and, when I see a proposal that seems like there's a really obvious solution the speaker missed, step back and go: wait. Maybe it's more complicated than that. I should find out before saying anything. On 23 August 2015 at 15:23, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/23/15, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Admins? And who are those? Please build a listing of every admin for every possible technical venue relating to Wikimedia. While you're at it, we're going to need them to have a shared hivemind so enforcement is consistent between venues. They're also going to need to communicate about sanctions so that behaviour spilling over to multiple venues can be factored in. And while you're doing /that/ please make sure they all have an appropriate protocol for appealing things and passing issues upwards. Or we could have a committee. I get that this is a technical environment and we are all, myself included, used to being able to chip in anywhere with some utility. But please have some respect for the people coming up with these ideas. The idea of a code of conduct and an associated committee is coming from smart people, and it did not spring fully-formed from their brow like Athena from Zeus. It came from literal decades of work by many, many other smart people in a vast number of communities that have tried a ton of options. And when we say why don't we just do obvious_thing_x? we are demonstrating a total failure to respect the expertise other people have in this sort of process, which is generally /not/ our expertise, and failing to do research to boot. If it helps, imagine that instead of talking to this group about behavioural policies, you were explaining to C.Scott or Subbu why their idea for a parser is overly complicated and they /totally/ don't need to be doing $THING. So my suggestion - and this is something I have tried to follow myself when I don't understand the point of something in the form bad things are happening, why don't we do X is to literally google why isn't [the obviously simple thing I thought of] a good idea?, and see what smart people have already written. It saves from forcing marginalised individuals to repeat, for the fiftieth time in a thread, why X is a good approach here, and I tend to learn something along the way. Really, you're going to tell people to STFW on a thread about conduct? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On 8/23/15, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No, because that would be gratuitous and unnecessary language that contributes nothing to the discussion. But if you meant: really, you're going to suggest, optionally, that people do research before hitting send and consider the possibility that this is not their area of expertise, where it is other peoples', absolutely. To be clear; this is not /my/ area of expertise either. This is precisely why I try to make search for it before commenting on it a rule I adhere to. But I have seen people I respect and care about end up absurdly worn out by having to explain, again and again, what are (to them) basic things to people who have been fortunate enough to not be in a situation where they have to think about process, or the consequences of power imbalances, or similar subjects, and that is not an outcome I like to contribute to. I imagine it isn't an outcome other people particularly want either. And it is, in and of itself, something that is chilling; if the onus is on the marginalised to explain basic elements of this over and over then it swiftly becomes a game in which winning is too costly on time and energy to play. So I try to google and search and, when I see a proposal that seems like there's a really obvious solution the speaker missed, step back and go: wait. Maybe it's more complicated than that. I should find out before saying anything. Well maybe they aren't explaining very good. This is a long thread, I think I've read most of it, its possible I've forgotten something, but - I don't really recall anyone addressing the topic of why a committee is better than the combined group of admins (For the record, I don't think the admins would work well for various reasons, I just don't see that its been discussed). Instead of saying its been discussed 50 times, why not link to one of those 50 times? Maybe the person asking the question just missed it. Maybe the person asking the question interpreted the email differently than you, and on a closer examination would be able to see what you mean. Maybe you misremembered the email, and the person's question hasn't been answered. Whatever the case, actually citing the email would allow the conversation to move forward better. As for googling - google can be somewhat random which documents it returns depending on how you phrase the question. Is it really that much harder to link to whatever argument you think will come up? In this particular instance, searching for Why should code of conducts not be enforced by admins and Why should code of conducts not be enforced by large bodies which are the most obvious query for Steinsplitter's question, come up with nothing. But even if they did come up with something relavent, linking directly allows people to know for sure which arguments are being talked about, and evaluate them properly. -- bawolff On 23 August 2015 at 15:23, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/23/15, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Admins? And who are those? Please build a listing of every admin for every possible technical venue relating to Wikimedia. While you're at it, we're going to need them to have a shared hivemind so enforcement is consistent between venues. They're also going to need to communicate about sanctions so that behaviour spilling over to multiple venues can be factored in. And while you're doing /that/ please make sure they all have an appropriate protocol for appealing things and passing issues upwards. Or we could have a committee. I get that this is a technical environment and we are all, myself included, used to being able to chip in anywhere with some utility. But please have some respect for the people coming up with these ideas. The idea of a code of conduct and an associated committee is coming from smart people, and it did not spring fully-formed from their brow like Athena from Zeus. It came from literal decades of work by many, many other smart people in a vast number of communities that have tried a ton of options. And when we say why don't we just do obvious_thing_x? we are demonstrating a total failure to respect the expertise other people have in this sort of process, which is generally /not/ our expertise, and failing to do research to boot. If it helps, imagine that instead of talking to this group about behavioural policies, you were explaining to C.Scott or Subbu why their idea for a parser is overly complicated and they /totally/ don't need to be doing $THING. So my suggestion - and this is something I have tried to follow myself when I don't understand the point of something in the form bad things are happening, why don't we do X is to literally google why isn't [the obviously simple thing I thought of] a good idea?, and see what smart people have already written. It saves from forcing marginalised individuals to repeat, for the fiftieth time in a thread, why X is a good approach
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On 23 August 2015 at 03:52, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps more importantlywho were the local contacts at Hackathon 2015? I can't even dig that one up in the event documentation. A policy that exists but has no clear or visible support isn't worth the bytes it's written with. +1 Don't forget this bit - enforcement is the difference between a policy that does anything, and someone writing another million words of well-meaning rules on a wiki somewhere. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
Admins? And who are those? Please build a listing of every admin for every possible technical venue relating to Wikimedia. While you're at it, we're going to need them to have a shared hivemind so enforcement is consistent between venues. They're also going to need to communicate about sanctions so that behaviour spilling over to multiple venues can be factored in. And while you're doing /that/ please make sure they all have an appropriate protocol for appealing things and passing issues upwards. Or we could have a committee. I get that this is a technical environment and we are all, myself included, used to being able to chip in anywhere with some utility. But please have some respect for the people coming up with these ideas. The idea of a code of conduct and an associated committee is coming from smart people, and it did not spring fully-formed from their brow like Athena from Zeus. It came from literal decades of work by many, many other smart people in a vast number of communities that have tried a ton of options. And when we say why don't we just do obvious_thing_x? we are demonstrating a total failure to respect the expertise other people have in this sort of process, which is generally /not/ our expertise, and failing to do research to boot. If it helps, imagine that instead of talking to this group about behavioural policies, you were explaining to C.Scott or Subbu why their idea for a parser is overly complicated and they /totally/ don't need to be doing $THING. So my suggestion - and this is something I have tried to follow myself when I don't understand the point of something in the form bad things are happening, why don't we do X is to literally google why isn't [the obviously simple thing I thought of] a good idea?, and see what smart people have already written. It saves from forcing marginalised individuals to repeat, for the fiftieth time in a thread, why X is a good approach here, and I tend to learn something along the way. On 23 August 2015 at 04:29, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-w...@live.com wrote: Why we need a committee? I think admins can enforce if necessary. Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:30:40 -0600 From: bawo...@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct On 8/22/15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: David, thanks for this find. THIS is why the Code of Conduct is needed. I recognized myself in this blog. I remembered avoiding any aspect of socialization at conferences I had to attend for work, and simply didn't even consider attending conferences for any other purpose. I remembered how readily the guys assumed that any woman there was there for more than just networking and learning. I remembered having my butt pinched, my breasts accidentally touched, my questions ignored or laughed at. I remember how the buzz of background conversation is always much louder when the speaker is a woman than when the speaker is a man. It's changed for me. Not because there's any less of all of this going on. No, it's because my hair is grey and I'm now old enough to be the mom of half the people in the room at any male-dominated conferences I attend; and outside of Wikimedia events, the conferences I go to are usually full of conservative businesswomen, and alcohol is rarely involved. So yeah...you need a code of conduct. Because if I was even 15 years younger, I'd never go to a Wikimedia conference. Risker/Anne Thank you for writing this. I really appreciate you sharing your experiences. Your comments have convinced me that I should support the proposal, where previously I had mixed feelings. The types of behaviours you describe are absolutely unacceptable. -- Bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
Why we need a committee? I think admins can enforce if necessary. Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:30:40 -0600 From: bawo...@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct On 8/22/15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: David, thanks for this find. THIS is why the Code of Conduct is needed. I recognized myself in this blog. I remembered avoiding any aspect of socialization at conferences I had to attend for work, and simply didn't even consider attending conferences for any other purpose. I remembered how readily the guys assumed that any woman there was there for more than just networking and learning. I remembered having my butt pinched, my breasts accidentally touched, my questions ignored or laughed at. I remember how the buzz of background conversation is always much louder when the speaker is a woman than when the speaker is a man. It's changed for me. Not because there's any less of all of this going on. No, it's because my hair is grey and I'm now old enough to be the mom of half the people in the room at any male-dominated conferences I attend; and outside of Wikimedia events, the conferences I go to are usually full of conservative businesswomen, and alcohol is rarely involved. So yeah...you need a code of conduct. Because if I was even 15 years younger, I'd never go to a Wikimedia conference. Risker/Anne Thank you for writing this. I really appreciate you sharing your experiences. Your comments have convinced me that I should support the proposal, where previously I had mixed feelings. The types of behaviours you describe are absolutely unacceptable. -- Bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On 8/22/15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: David, thanks for this find. THIS is why the Code of Conduct is needed. I recognized myself in this blog. I remembered avoiding any aspect of socialization at conferences I had to attend for work, and simply didn't even consider attending conferences for any other purpose. I remembered how readily the guys assumed that any woman there was there for more than just networking and learning. I remembered having my butt pinched, my breasts accidentally touched, my questions ignored or laughed at. I remember how the buzz of background conversation is always much louder when the speaker is a woman than when the speaker is a man. It's changed for me. Not because there's any less of all of this going on. No, it's because my hair is grey and I'm now old enough to be the mom of half the people in the room at any male-dominated conferences I attend; and outside of Wikimedia events, the conferences I go to are usually full of conservative businesswomen, and alcohol is rarely involved. So yeah...you need a code of conduct. Because if I was even 15 years younger, I'd never go to a Wikimedia conference. Risker/Anne Thank you for writing this. I really appreciate you sharing your experiences. Your comments have convinced me that I should support the proposal, where previously I had mixed feelings. The types of behaviours you describe are absolutely unacceptable. -- Bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
Brian Wolff wrote: Well maybe they aren't explaining very good. This is a long thread, I think I've read most of it, its possible I've forgotten something, but - I don't really recall anyone addressing the topic of why a committee is better than the combined group of admins (For the record, I don't think the admins would work well for various reasons, I just don't see that its been discussed). I agree that we should have a better and more thorough evaluation of enforcement options. A committee of three to five people is a specific potential solution, but from what I've read on the draft talk page and elsewhere, there hasn't been much discussion about alternate options. Defining various options for enforcing a code of conduct besides having a committee and providing reasons for why these options are or are not feasible/available/best would be helpful, in my opinion. This might include surveying how other codes of conduct are enforced (or not), which some discussion participants have already made efforts to do. MZMcBride ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Issue with Gadget dependencies and ResourceLoader
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.com
wrote:
When you load a script through ResourceLoader, it's not executed in global
context. This means that global variables you define are actually *not
global* (they are local to the function your code is wrapped in), unless
you explicitly assign them as `window` properties.
I added a section on this, Global variables are not global to
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader/Migration_guide under
MediaWiki 1.26,
with a pointer to
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Coding_conventions/JavaScript#Globals
where the latter says Only mediaWiki
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/DM#MediaWiki and jQuery
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/DM#jQuery should be used (in addition
to the browser's native APIs).
The latter doesn't suggest creating an object with mediaWiki/mw. I added
You should expose your code's functionality to other clients as functions
and properties of an object within mediaWiki, e.g. mediaWiki.echo, and
possibly as documented mw.config configuration variables.
but surely there's a page that talks about this idiom. Are there any
gadgets that add an object within mediaWiki ? If we were to rewrite
morebits.js from scratch, wouldn't it be better to create
mediaWiki.moreBits.{quickForm, simpleWindow, ...} rather than
window.MoreBits ?
Cheers,
--
=S Page WMF Tech writer
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
